pothos.org

Well, mostly because there is no point to conquering the southern Greek poleis off the bat if there is no strategic gain attached to it.

I guess I could be wrong, but I think Alexander, ambitions and all, was a bit more pragmatic than that.

smittysmitty wrote:

marcus wrote: The simple fact is, that Philip couldn't expand in any direction (except North) without coming into conflict with the poleis. Therefore, he had to subdue Greece before he could go into Asia.

Hi Marcus, I'm afraid I can't agree with you. In saying what you do, you presume Philip had already preconceived plans to embark upon an Asiatic expedition.

You are right to challenge me; but I was not being clear, I'm afraid, because I did not mean that. What I was trying to say was that any expansion (except north) was going to put Philip into conflict with the Greek states. Therefore, before he could ever conceive of the idea of invading Asia he cannot have avoided such conflict.

smittysmitty wrote:

marcus wrote:From Alexander's point of view, he could only have left the Greek states alone if they hadn't attempted to regain independence following Philip's death (the cads). As it was, he couldn't cross the Hellespont without ensuring that his rear was going to be safe.

Yes what you say is true, but the very same attention was required of the Thracian and Illyrian's in revolt. Is there something particularly significant about the southern Greek states? Do the other European subjects not also have this significance? It seems to me far too much emphasis is placed on the southern Greeks being strategically important! Yes they were important, but no more or less than any of the other newly aquired European subjects of Macedon.

Er ... not sure I get the point here. I'm not aware that anyone has suggested that the Thracians/Illyrians were any less important in that respect than the Greeks, but it was the Greeks that were discussed in the first place.

Having said that, I'm sure that the centuries of Hellenocentric historiography have made us automatically assume the Greek states were more important than the 'barbarian' states ... but that's not quite what this discussion has been about, or has it?

ATB

Semiramis wrote:

marcus wrote:From Alexander's point of view, he could only have left the Greek states alone if they hadn't attempted to regain independence following Philip's death (the cads). As it was, he couldn't cross the Hellespont without ensuring that his rear was going to be safe.

I just can't imagine Alexander ever wanting to leave anybody alone. Judging from the events in his life, this applies just as much to southern Greeks as non-Greeks. I don't see any evidence he had any special love for the southern Greeks just because modern classicists tend to. I doubt he was wincing any more at the thought of destroying Greek cities than Near Eastern or Indian ones.

But if the Greek poleis hadn't revolted, he wouldn't have needed to spend all that time putting down the rebellion. Not so much 'wanting' to leave them alone, but more wanting to get on with conquering more territory.

Semiramis wrote:I don't see any evidence he had any special love for the southern Greeks just because modern classicists tend to. I doubt he was wincing any more at the thought of destroying Greek cities than Near Eastern or Indian ones.

But actually, we do know that he did have a particular admiration of Athens, if not out and out love for the place. He did his very best not to destroy it, and even - one might argue - allowed Athens far too much freedem to denigrate him and scheme behind his back while he was in Asia. Not so much anywhere else, though, I will admit that!

ATB

marcus wrote:But actually, we do know that he did have a particular admiration of Athens, if not out and out love for the place. He did his very best not to destroy it, and even - one might argue - allowed Athens far too much freedem to denigrate him and scheme behind his back while he was in Asia.

Admiration? Not certain of that. He seemed to inherit his father's policy toward Athens: the key to holding the Greeks "together" behind him. Whether Philip or Alexander, after him, were correct in that view is another matter. Alexander had no compunctions about levelling Thebes - a city that attracted Greek hate as a lightening rod does lightening - but think how he'd have looked had he levelled Athens. His father knew and so did he. His father was also eminently capable of levelling Sparta. He chose not to for this and other more immediate reasons.

marcus wrote:But actually, we do know that he did have a particular admiration of Athens, if not out and out love for the place. He did his very best not to destroy it, and even - one might argue - allowed Athens far too much freedem to denigrate him and scheme behind his back while he was in Asia. Not so much anywhere else, though, I will admit that!

Mm.. He was reportedly sorry after destroying Thebes... Sorry after destroying Persepolis... I'm sure if push came to shove, he would've been sorry for having to destroy Athens too. Athenian navy could've come in handy had he chosen to use them though... As for Athenian scheming, who between Greece and India wasn't scheming against our boy? And can you blame them?